-DETAILED ACTION-
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s response dated April 6, 2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/BR2021/050039 filed on 01/26/2021, and claims foreign priority in Brazilian application BR102020002172.9 filed on 01/31/2020.
Claim Status
Claims 22-31 are pending. Claims 1-21 were canceled. Claims 22-31 were newly added. Claims 28-31 are withdrawn. Claims 22-27 read on the elected invention of Group I and are examined on the merits.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group II (Claims renumbered claims 22-27), drawn to a process for producing photosynthesis stimulators in the reply filed on April 6, 2026, is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground that the synthesis process is directly linked to the structure of the product and to its use, and would not be appropriate to separate the product, process, and use into different patents, as these aspects are interdependent and, taken together, constitute as single invention. Applicant cited three examples of different carbon dots prepared by different methods to show that different carbon nanodots have different properties.
Applicant provided a comparison between carbon dots of the instant invention and carbon dots taught by Park, which is the references used to break unity of invention. Differences are provided in Tables 1-3 and are expected because the respective production processes and consequently, the resulting surface properties and biological behavior and use are substantially different. Park discloses a hydrothermal process employing citric acid and ethylenediamine, while the present application provides a continuous-flow process using citric acid or tartaric acid together with urea, optionally further including doping with micro- or macronutrients. These materially different synthetic routs would be expected to yield carbon dots having different characteristics.
Applicant’s arguments were fully considered, however they were found unpersuasive because applicant did not show that the common technical feature, carbon dots produced by the method of claim 22, are structurally distinct from Park’s carbon dots and that Park’s carbon dot could not have been produced by claim 22. The three different prior art examples of carbon dots demonstrate that the specific carbon dots produced by those specific methods and starting materials result in carbon dots having different properties. The three examples, however are not evidence that carbon dots produced by instantly claimed method would be structurally distinct from Park’s carbon dots. Instantly claimed method is broad in that it does not limit starting materials. Currently, the process in claim 22 can be carried out using any starting materials and in any amounts. Claim 22 requires an acid solution, a base solution, and an optional dopant. Dependent claim 23 requires the acid carbon-rich matrix solution to comprise citric acid and tartaric acid, however none of the other components used as the starting material are further define thus the based solution and the optional dopant remain broad in claim 23. Similarly, claim 24 defines the base solution as comprising urea, without further defining any of the other starting materials. Claim 25 requires water as solvent, while keeping all of the other starting materials broad. Claim 27 broadly recites dopants, without limiting any of the other starting materials. The process steps are also broad where the rate at which the acid and the base solutions are metered into a mixer is not limited, the temperature ranges from 100 to 250°C in step iii, and the duration of any of the steps is not limited by time. The applicant has not presented sufficient data to show that the claimed process of making carbon dots is critical nor that the claimed combination of starting materials is critical, and that Parks carbon dots could not have been formed by instantly claimed method.
Comparative data between Park’s carbon dots and inventive carbon dots was submitted in applicant’s remarks, which is improper. Any new data that was not submitted with the application at the time of filing is required to be submitted in an affidavit. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the data would not have been sufficient to show that Park’s carbon dots are structurally different from instantly claimed carbon dots for the following reasons. It is unknown what method and starting materials were used to prepare carbon dots from Park, and it is unknown what method and starting materials were used to prepare the inventive carbon dots. It is also unknown how the two different carbon dots were tested to obtain the data provided by applicant in Tables 1-3. It is noted that instantly claimed carbon dots are broad, and it cannot be determined if the data reported by the applicant in the tables would have been expected to occur for a carbon dot produced from any starting material using instantly claimed method. Applicant did not provide sufficient data to support the argument that instantly claimed carbon dots are structurally different from Park’s carbon dots. The two independent product claims 28 and 29, each require a carbon dot produced by a process of claim 22. Claim 22 does not limit the starting materials. The burden is on the applicant to show that the claimed products are structurally different from the prior art product. See MPEP 2113.
The restriction requirement of January 5, 2026 is proper. Applicant elected Group II, which is a method of making a product. Product claims and methods of using the product are not eligible for rejoinder. Applicant’s traversal for reconsideration of the restriction requirement in view of claim amendments was considered, but is not found persuasive for reasons described above.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Accordingly, claims 28-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being withdrawn to a non-elected invention, and non-elected species of the invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claims. Please note that after a final requirement for restriction, the Applicants, in addition to making any response due on the remainder of the action, may petition the Commissioner to review the requirement. Petition may be deferred until after final action on or allowance of claims to the invention elected, but must be filed not later than appeal. A petition will not be considered if reconsideration of the requirement was not requested. (See § 1.181.).
Response to the restriction requirement of January 5, 2026 was timely filed.
Claims 22-27 are examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 22-27 recite phrases A METHOD FOR PRODUCTION OF PHOTOSYNTHESIS STIMULATORS and THE METHOD FOR PRODUCTION OF SYNTHESIS STIMULATORS. The claims are objected to for use of all capital letters. A claim should be written in sentence form where the first letter of the first word is capitalized and any additional use of capital letters in the claim follows proper grammar rules. It is recommended to amend the phrases where only the first letter is capitalized, such as “A” and “The”.
Claim 24 is objected to because “used” in the phrase “the base solution used comprises urea” is not necessary and it is recommended to delete “used”.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 22 requires a tubular plug flow reactor (PFR). The application as filed provides support for a piston flow tube reactor (PFR) (paragraph 0075).
Claim 22 requires recycling the mixture until product formation, followed by its separation by density difference. This limitation is new matter because it is not supported in the application as filed. Paragraph 0075 mentions “recycle” and paragraph 0091 mentions “recycling” and none of the teachings in these paragraphs provide support for step (v).
Claims 23-27 are rejected for new matter because the claims depend from claim 22 and incorporate all limitations of claim 22.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 22 recites “an acid solution that works as a carbon-rich matrix”. The claim is indefinite because “carbon-rich” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “carbon-rich” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The scope of the acid solution is not clear because it is unknown what components and in what amounts are required in the acid solution in order for the acid solution to be considered a carbon-rich matrix. The phrase is further indefinite because the meaning of “works as” is not clear as it is unknown how it affects the scope of the acid solution.
Claim 22 recites “a base solution, acting as a functional group source”. The phrase renders the claim indefinite because the meaning of “acting as” is not clear as it is unknown how it affects the scope of the base solution.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the finished product" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the process" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the mixture" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the supernatant phase" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the bottom phase" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the second mixing vessel" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the initial reagent stream" in lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites “the process being stabilized within a period of 0.5 to 2 hours”. The phrase renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if it refers to the method as a whole or if it refers to a specific process recited under i)-v). The claim is further indefinite because it is not clear what being stabilized within a period of 0.5 to 2 hours means.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the acid carbon-rich matrix solution" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites “characterized in that it uses water as solvent”. The claim is indefinite because it is not clear where water is used as a solvent in claim 22. Claim 22 recites multiple steps and water could have been used in any one or all of the steps. Additionally, claim 25 could be interpreted to mean that claim 25 requires an additional unrecited step that requires using water. Clarification is required as to which step or steps specifically require using water.
Claim 26 recites “characterized in that uses a tubular PFR”. The phrase renders the claim indefinite because it is unknown what is intended use the tubular PFR.
The term “low surface roughness material” in claim 26 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low surface roughness material” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 26 recites “and provided with an outlet restrictive valve”. The phrase renders the claim indefinite because it is unknown what is being provided with an outlet restrictive valve. Overall, claim 26 is indefinite because it is not clear how it further defines the method of claim 22.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the carbon nanoparticles" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the carbon nanoparticles are doped with macronutrients or micronutrients. The claim is indefinite because it is not clear how claim 27 is intended to further affect the scope of claim 22. The claim could be interpreted as further defining claim 22 by requiring the optional dopant to be added in step ii, where the carbon dots obtained by the process comprise the dopant and the dopant is a macronutrient or a micronutrient. Alternatively, the claim could be interpreted as further defining claim 22 by requiring carbon nanoparticles of claim 27 to be introduced in the process.
Claim 27 is indefinite because it is not clear if elements followed after “among them” and “such as” are required or exemplary. If applicant intended to limit the macronutrients and micronutrients to elements recited after said phrases, it is recommended to replace the phrases “selected from the group consisting of” to make it clear what the micronutrients and macronutrients are limited to the recited elements.
The application was reviewed and it does not provide clarification for these ambiguities.
Claim 24 is indefinite because it depends from an indefinite base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
The subject matter of claims 22-27 is free of the prior art of record. A search did not recover relevant prior art over which the claims may be rejected.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alma - Pipic whose telephone number is (571)270-7459. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Hartley can be reached on 571-272-0616. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALMA PIPIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights